October 10, 2016

It wasn't much of a "town hall" debate was it? I felt sorry for those people who had to sit and be background for 90 minutes. There were so few of them. Each one stood out and had to sit still and look alive, but though they were few, most never got called on. Those who did get a shot asked the most simple, pathetic questions. As I try to recall the questions this morning, they all seemed to be a short plea: What will you do to encourage people like me?

The candidates mostly ignored the person and even the question and plugged in something they wanted to talk about. They never did any of the sort of emotive, bonding-with-the-questioner performance that we are urged to think of when we hear the words "town hall debate." They ran out the clock, and then one of the moderators — in the guise of a "follow-up" question — would replace the "town"person's question with something more specific.

Here's the transcript of last night's debate. I'm going to read the questions and test myself. Am I right about what I just said? (Or do you need me to talk about the fly that landed on Hillary Clinton's face or the way Trump and Hillary didn't shake hands at the beginning and did shake hands in the end? Meade wanted me to rewind and get a video of the fly's antics. I could be first with the news of the fly! Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. We rewound and laughed a lot, but I left it to the internet to take the pictures.)

Question 1 came from a teacher. She wanted to know if the candidates "feel" they are "modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth." Hillary, going first and setting the tone, boosted the ego of the townswoman by pronouncing her question "very good" and "important." She then proceeded to ignore the question and go into her standard line "our country really is great because we’re good." That's been her pat answer to Trump's banal "Make America Great Again." So when Trump got his turn, he knew where to go: His "whole concept" has been "to make America great again." A typical cascade of short sentences flowed out of that mental prompt, and nothing got back to the townswoman's question.

At the "follow-up" phase, Anderson Cooper brought in the grab-them-by-the-pussy tape we've all been talking about, and here we know Trump had to have a prepared answer. The answer was: 1. It "was locker room talk," 2. He's "not proud of it," 3. He apologizes to his family and to the American people, and 4. ISIS is way worse — they chop off heads! — and he's going "knock the hell out of ISIS." Cooper pins him down and gets him to deny that he's ever done "those things" that he talked about (which Cooper, like me and many others, characterizes as "sexual assault).

This was a perfect opportunity for Hillary Clinton to get back to the townswoman's question, but the townswoman was forgotten as Hillary spoke of women in general. Women women women women women women women. She says "women" 7 times... and ends with: "We will celebrate our diversity." Trump insists on speaking again — after Martha Raddatz tries to move on to a question "from online" — but he doesn't get back to the townswoman either. He begins "It’s just words, folks. It’s just words." He didn't mean his grab-them-by-the-pussy business was just words. He meant Hillary's statement was just words. But once she gets your vote, "she does nothing."

Raddatz's question "from online" is "Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?" And Raddatz loads grab-them-by-the-pussy specificity onto Jeff-from-Ohio's dull question. Trump responds with #1 and #2 of the 4-point answer he'd just given to Cooper. He skips #3 (the apology) and hops straight to #4. But this time it's not ISIS is worse. It's Bill Clinton is worse — "far worse." I wonder if Raddatz regretted repeating the question he'd already answered. Trump says he only spoke words, but Bill Clinton did actions: "There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women." And: "Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously." And he's got 4 of those women here tonight. (He said 4, but only 3 were accusers of Bill Clinton. The 4th one is connected only to Hillary, who has laughed in the context of describing her defense of the man who raped that woman when she was 12 years old.)

Hillary reeled out a list of Trump sins. It was a way to say — in answer to Jeff from Ohio — that Trump has not changed. When she ends by saying Trump owes President Obama an apology for the "racist lie" of saying he wasn't born in America, Trump responds that she owes the apology because her campaign started it. He goes on to reel out his list of her sins. It gets very intense, and Trump threatens to get "a special prosecutor" after her. Clinton tries laughing off how hard it is to fact-check on the fly. (Ugh! I need another expression. I can't say "on the fly" in this post. The fly was on her, so she can't be "on the fly.") She refers us to her website. She actually says the URL. Who says URLs anymore? She does! Then she ends with a line that gives Trump the joke of the night:

CLINTON: Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.

It's gone on so long without a second question from the poor townsfolk stuck in the chairs under the scrutiny of 100 million TV viewers. But it's not time for them yet. It's time for Raddatz to do a "follow-up." She asks Clinton about the email: Wasn't she "extremely careless"? Of course, that gets the canned answer we've heard time and again from Clinton. It was "a mistake" and she's sorry. Raddatz didn't mention the destruction of 33,000 emails, but Trump does: "You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don’t think so.... and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress." Cooper and Raddatz try to cut Trump off but he barrels on: "If you did that in the private sector, you’d be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress."

Cooper gives Clinton a chance to respond, and Trump doesn't refrain from interrupting:

CLINTON: Look, it’s just not true. And so please, go to...

TRUMP: Oh, you didn’t delete them?

COOPER: Allow her to respond, please.

CLINTON: It was personal e-mails, not official.

TRUMP: Oh, 33,000? Yeah.

CLINTON: Not — well, we turned over 35,000, so...

TRUMP: Oh, yeah. What about the other 15,000?

COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn’t talk while you talked.

CLINTON: Yes, that’s true, I didn’t.

TRUMP: Because you have nothing to say.

CLINTON: I didn’t in the first debate, and I’m going to try not to in this debate, because I’d like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk to us about.

TRUMP: Get off this question.

That's major interrupting — short and sharply satirical. It takes no real time, but it throws the other person off and it's what we remember.

Finally, we get to another townsperson. Trump mistakenly thinks he should go first, apparently because the first question from a townsperson went to Clinton, and this is only the second townsperson. But Trump had the question "from online," so Clinton is, we're told, entitled once again to be the first to respond to a flesh-and-blood person. At this point, the question is known — what will you about the crazy system that is Obamacare? (I'm paraphrasing, importing a Bill Clintonism.) Clinton humorously accedes to what now looks rude: "If he wants to start, he can start." Trump backs off: "No, I’m a gentlemen, Hillary. Go ahead."

Hillary gives a long wonkish answer devoid of any personal reaching out to the townsman who asked the question. Trump is a tad more personal in that he declares it "such a great question." Cooper's follow-up reminds Hillary that Bill Clinton called Obamacare "the craziest thing in the world." Does she agree with her husband or not? She says: "No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it’s very clear." Oh? Is it? I don't remember how Bill clarified. I think I mentally checked out until the next question.

It's a townswoman who self-identifies as a Muslim. This is the question that stood out to me as the classic town-hall type question, the people-like-me question. She says what she is. She points at a problem: Islamophobia. And she asks: What will you do to help people like me? The candidate can simply address the problem or he or she can sidle up to the townsperson and create a Bill-Clinton-feel-your-pain moment. Trump went first and he didn't do it. Hillary therefore had a chance, but she didn't do it either. She could have talked to the woman and said her name. She has a name: It's Gorbah Hamed. But Hillary name-dropped George Washington and — wha? — Muhammad Ali:

"And we’ve had many successful Muslims. We just lost a particular well-known one with Muhammad Ali."

Forget it, townslady. You're not a celebrity. After days of hearing Trump's old brag about how because he's a star, he can do anything, you'd think Hillary would see the reason to demonstrate valuing the little people, the townsfolk. Everyone matters. Instead, Hillary gives us this out-of-the-blue invocation of Muhammad Ali. He was Muslim. There are some famous Muslims, Muslims we care about. Huh?!

Can we get another townsperson? No. A huge chunk of time is consumed with follow-ups — about the "Muslim ban"/"extreme vetting," about increasing the intake of refugees — and candidate-injected issues — Trump's purported opposition to the war in Iraq, about drugs pouring through the "southern border" — and another question "from online" — about Hillary's paid speeches. That last thing gives Hillary a chance to name-drop another great President, President Abraham Lincoln:

As I recall, that [statement about having a public and private position on certain issues] was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.

The name-dropping of a great old President is, once again, accompanied by the name of a modern-day celebrity. Washington got Ali. Lincoln gets Spielberg. Trump hits back: "Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln." I love the show-biz phrase "late, great." It seems jocose used to describe someone who died a century and a half ago. And there is laughter in the hall. Trump plays it up:

OK, Honest Abe, Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference. We’re talking about some difference.

We are now so far into the debate — maybe half way — and finally we hear from a fourth townsperson, the first second one who addresses Trump: "What specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes?" Trump doesn't get touchy-feely. Oh! That sounds so wrong now... so grab-their-pussy. Well, anyway, he doesn't sidle up in a Bill-Clinton, feel-your-pain way... and that sounds wrong too... feel your pain... feel your pussy. No, the townsman is left unmolested, and Trump answers the question: carried interest.

It's Clinton's turn, and she's supposed to name a specific tax provision she'd change. She mocks Trump: "he lives in an alternative reality." She accuses him of planning to help himself and his friends: "Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald." But does Clinton not take care of herself and her friends? Does she ever cite a specific provision she'll change? She says she won't raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year. She says she once voted to change a loophole. But what specific provision will she change?

I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars. It’s called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one who’s gone out and said somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a surcharge on incomes above $5 million. We have to make up for lost times....

Lost times?

Cooper follows up, extracting from Trump the admission that he did carry forward the $916 million loss in 1995 to later years, as the tax law provides for.

Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write-offs.

There's no discussion of changing that particular tax provision (because it makes so much sense, but acting like it doesn't works on some people). Anyway, Cooper tries to get Trump to say how many years of income went tax free because of that huge 1995 loss, and Trump declines. He veers suddenly into Hillary's responsibility for the rise of ISIS and ends with a sarcastic: "Congratulations. Great job." Hillary shrugs it off: "Well, here we go again." She goes into a cascade of issues.

Can we get another townsperson? We've only had 4. No. It's another online person. Isn't the crisis in Syria "a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped?" Hillary doesn't engage on the history and emotion. She plugs in her Syria policy discussion. Trump's response gets Clinton to break her non-interruption policy:

TRUMP: First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which...

CLINTON: No, I wasn’t. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point...

The Syria discussion goes on a long time, but finally it ends, and — lo and behold — a townsperson gets called on. The man — speaking of name-dropping ex-Presidents — is named James Carter. He asks an utterly sentimental, softball question: "Do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States?"

It's Trump's turn, and he doesn't warm up to Carter. He goes on the attack against Clinton. She called millions of people "deplorable" and "irredeemable." And:

Let me tell you, if she’s president of the United States, nothing’s going to happen. It’s just going to be talk. And all of her friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She’s not doing any me favors. But by doing all the others’ favors, she’s doing me favors.

Osmosis, eh? I had to think about that. He's saying that personally, financially, he'd be better off with her as President, because the people she's going to favor — her friends — are like him, so he'd benefit along with them.

Hillary defends her 30 years of public service. It wasn't "nothing" (as Trump has said repeatedly). She can't get any love and compassion to ooze out... to osmose.... It's a steely cold battle of wills.

Cooper follows up by confronting her with her words "deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." She says that she said she was sorry. How many times does she have to tell you she's sorry? Trump gets an opportunity to drive it home:

And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said irredeemable, they’re irredeemable, you didn’t mention that...but when she said they’re irredeemable, to me that might have been even worse.... She’s got tremendous — she’s got tremendous hatred.

So Cooper badgered Trump about tweeting from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. Isn't that undisciplined? (This is supposed to be following up the townsman's question about being a "devoted president" to everyone.)

Trump seizes upon the 3 a.m. prompt to talk about the 3 a.m. call from Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi — " 600 requests for help." Cooper tries to track him onto the "discipline of a good leader," and Trump eventually gets around to Twitter: "It is a very effective form of communication. I’m not un-proud of it, to be honest with you."

Can we hear from a townsperson at long last? Yes! Finally a 6th component of the backdrop gets to come alive and ask a question. It's the old who-will-you-put-on-the-Supreme-Court question. Neither candidate seems even to look for a way to get personal with the townsman. There's the usual blah-blah-blah. Trump likes Scalia. Hillary wants you to know she "respect[s]" the Second Amendment."

And then — miracle! — there are no follow-ups as the moderators wedge in one more question from a townsperson... Ken Bone. It's the energy-policy question: How will you get us everything we need without hurting anything we care about? (I'm paraphrasing.) Trump throws Bone a bone: it's "a great question." But there's no asking Bone how he may have personally suffered or any of that old-timey "town hall" flummery. Clinton picks up on the policy issues with no attention at all to Bone the Man.

It seems that the time should be up, but the moderators, again forgoing follow-up, call on one more townsperson. I'll bet this guy was stunned. Just when he was thinking he was about to be set free, his button was pushed, and he had to pop up and perform for the millions. You can tell the moderators had this guy saved for the denouement: The townsman invites each candidate to say "one positive thing" about the other.

Raddatz asks Trump to go first, but Clinton barges in:

Well, I certainly will, because I think that’s a very fair and important question.

She'll go first because the question is "very fair and important." Not because the townsman is anyone to embrace and reach out to and warm up to and grab by the... heart. But because he asked a decent question. The answer is:

Look, I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald....

Donald goes second, and imagine if he'd gone first and he'd given the offspring answer. It would have seemed sexist. The first thing you think of that's good about a woman is her children? But the woman said it about the man, and this man isn't going to copy and return the same compliment. He said what I — when I heard the question — predicted they'd both say: My opponent is a fighter.

She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up. I respect that.... She’s a fighter. I disagree with much of what she’s fighting for.... But she does fight hard... And I consider that to be a very good trait.

And that's the end. I'd like to thank you for being here with me this morning as I tested my impression of what happened last night — that a town hall isn't what it's supposed to be. What it's supposed to be is — I'll use the word again — flummery. I'd dispense with the backdrop of inert, uncomfortable human beings and their stilted questions. There is no town. We're not in Iowa and New Hampshire anymore. Spare us the inane scenery. We don't need to pretend to return to a bygone era — to "lost times." And I don't like my bygone era spiked with questions from the internet — those social media layabouts who get to intrude their questions in front of the townsfolk who endured the ordeal of sitting on little chairs behaving themselves for 90 minutes. Raddatz and Cooper wanted to ask tough questions and manage a proper grilling. Set them free to do just that with a normal moderated debate. Don't make me feel they're being insufficiently benevolent to the "townspeople" — all in the hope that the candidates might seize an opportunity to show some stunning compassion to an ordinary American. It didn't happen last night, and the candidates don't seem to think they even need to try to do that anymore.

Can we stop trying to return to the "lost times" of 1992?

That happened that one time, and, looking back, it doesn't seem that significant. We've grown up since then. That looks as old-timey as the Norman Rockwell image of a town hall the bogus town hall debates are meant to evoke:

By the way, is that guy a basket-of-deplorables type? Look closely. I suspect they all are.

I'm sort of curious to know more about what sort of nasty things nasty homosexuals say to demean other homosexuals. Pretty much all I know on the subject is stuff I picked up from this blog. Somehow I got the impression that calling someone a "pillow-biter" is rather mild. Maybe that's because there's a well-made bed involved, and bed means mattress, and mattresses are soft, and soft means tender love.

Here is some suggested reading for Althouse, a little perspective is a good thing.

"If any of these newfound exponents of female modesty felt any comparable nausea at the blatant display of female sexuality and, dare I say it, “pussy,” in Beyoncé’s acclaimed rock video “Formation,” say, they kept it to themselves. Beyoncé and her female chorus line rhythmically thrust their butts, crotches, and breasts to the camera, while Beyoncé brags of her sexual prowess:Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky freshI’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’)Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like thatI did not come to play with you hoes, hahaI came to slay, bitchWhen he fuck me good I take his ass to Red Lobster, cause I slayIf he hit it right, I might take him on a flight on my chopper, cause I slayDrop him off at the mall, let him buy some J’s, let him shop up, cause I slayI might get your song played on the radio station, cause I slay"

"President Obama has singled out Beyoncé for praise, and the singer is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, to not a word of protest from Clinton regarding her status as a role model for young girls. Bill Clinton met with Beyoncé and her husband, rapper Jay Z, in September. If Bill or Hillary thinks the lyrics of Jay Z’s “Big Pimpin‘” “horrific,” in Hillary’s words, they are not letting on:You know I thug em, fuck em, love em, leave em

Cause I don’t fuckin need emTake em out the hood, keep em lookin goodBut I don’t fuckin feed emFirst time they fuss I’m breezinTalkin bout, “What’s the reasons?”I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitchBetter trust than believe emIn the cut where I keep emtil I need a nut, til I need to beat the gutsThen it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em upLet em play with the dick in the truckMany chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffsDivorce him and split his bucksJust because you got good head, I’m a break breadso you can be livin it up? Shit Iparts with nothin, y’all be frontinMe give my heart to a woman?Not for nothin, never happen."

"It is particularly galling to see the selective resurrection of Victorian values from the same crowd that has been pushing transgender locker rooms on the world, in an effort to destroy the last shred of girls’ innate sexual modesty."

Blame the sorry moderators for selecting those lame questions to be asked. They obviously wanted stupid softballs for questions. Only the one by Mr. Bone near the end of the debate had any substance at all.

I didn't bother to watch the debate. That would require me to listen to Hillary's voice. That's just too annoying. Besides, there's nothing anyone could possibly say or do to get me to stay at home or vote for her. I don't have to like Trump to vote for him. He isn't Hillary. That's enough for now.

And the Lord did so; and there came a grievous swarm of flies into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt: the land was corrupted by reason of the swarm of flies.

"Cause I don’t fuckin need emTake em out the hood, keep em lookin goodBut I don’t fuckin feed emFirst time they fuss I’m breezinTalkin bout, “What’s the reasons?”I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitchBetter trust than believe emIn the cut where I keep emtil I need a nut, til I need to beat the gutsThen it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em upLet em play with the dick in the truckMany chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffsDivorce him and split his bucksJust because you got good head, I’m a break breadso you can be livin it up? Shit Iparts with nothin, y’all be frontinMe give my heart to a woman?Not for nothin, never happen.":

In between all the pimpin, do we really think Jay Z never "Grabbed the pussy"? He always got specific verbal consent at eery step of any sexual encounter? My dear, may I kiss you on the lips? My dear, you wanna play with the dick?

Does Obama, who says he loves Jay Z still listen to him despite his talk of Pimpin' women and having them play with his dick? If Obama listens to it, and isn't revolted, how can he serve as president? He's taking enjoyment listening to songs that degrade women and he likes those songs.

Can any man or woman who likes the song "I like big butts and I cannot lie" really take offense if Trump says "you can't be a ten if you have small tits" that's the equivalent of saying I like big tits and I cannot lie.

Who are the people who are living in this modern world who are suddenly so offended by what Trump said that they'd turn "rating women" into sexually objectifying women. Doesn't People magazine have sexiest man of the year, EVERY YEAR? Is that not rating men? And objectifying them? No woman ever said Brad Pitt, or david Beckham was a 10?Have we not heard women talk about stars who had big penises? There are websites that are all about which men in hollywood showed their penis, or who are rumored to have big ones. That's ok to say, but if Trump says he likes women with big breasts, he's somehow a sexist?Trump should turn that question on people like Megan Kelly and ask her Is it sexist to rate men on their six pack abs, or their sexiness, or bulge or body? And does she not know of a single woman who did that? Why doesnt' she have those women on her show and ask them if they should have to answer for their rampant sexism?

The only - and I mean only - positive reason Hillary gave for voting for her is that because she is a woman. That's it. She failed in the Senate and failed at State. Thirty years of failure in serving the American people. The only thing she has succeeded at is making herself rich.

Trump called on her to put $20 million of her own money into her campaign. She won't do it.

The number one reason to no longer hold debates: “The candidates mostly ignored the person and even the question and plugged in something they wanted to talk about.”The second-best reason to no longer hold debates is they’ve become primarily about the moderators and ultimate, the media. We should not treat the election like a media event on par with the Super Bowl.

When I think of the US situation, I dont think insects, though I do think inhuman. Such as the opening bit of H.G.Wells War of the Worlds - the policies of this country are being directed by "intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic", and of course they "slowly and surely draw their plans against us".

Last night was Donald Trump, human, against an array of robots and manikins out of some 1960s creepshow.

Hillary's Obamacare solution: Keep the good things and get rid of the bad.

the old, "Mend it Don't End it" Only I dont think you can mend this monstrosity. There is no way to fix it so that premiums dont continue going up. That is build into the system, and is literally how the system works. Those who can pay more pay higher prices to subsidize those that cant. IF that's how the system works, how do you mend that without changing how it works? But Republicans dont really have to do much. It will implode on itself at some point. and The democrats will need to defend keeping it after its collapsed. The worst of Obamacare hasn't officially hit yet. Obama was trying to time when portions of the law kicked in till after the election because he didnt want Hillary to have to deal with the ramifications of Obamacare before the election.

Friday night I crashed your partySaturday I said I'm sorrySunday came and trashed me out againI was only having funWasn't hurting any oneAnd we all enjoyed the weekend for a changeI've been stranded in the combat zoneI walked through Bedford Stuy aloneEven rode my motorcycle in the rainAnd you told me not to driveBut I made it home aliveSo you said that only proves that I'm insaneYou may be rightI may be crazyBut it just may be a lunatic you're looking forTurn out the lightDon't try to save meYou may be wrong for all I knowBut you may be right

10/10/16, 7:47 AMBlogger tim in vermont said...It's just right-wing conspiracy that Hillary's forehead is so shot up with botox that she couldn't feel that fly!10/10/16, 7:48 AM

I guess this Evan Rachel Wood is in Westworld, which I haven't seen. It did remind me home the first Terminator movie when Arnold Schwarzenegger is cleaning up after his wounds-dogging out his damaged eyeball with an X-Acto knife.

The only parts of Obamacare that the Democrats are pointing to as a "success" these days are the increase in people signed up for Medicaid. I.e., a straight government benefit. This could have been passed as is in 2009 with hardly a quibble and it would have cost far less and not been disruptive of the rest of the system.

I watched CNN and MSNBC for their take on the debate and now I am really confused.

I am assured here that mere talking now constitutes sexual assault and they are insisting that only third world countries would charge a political candidate who has been proven to have committed felonies (by FBI agents on national TV) and MSNBC is using a racist analyst to make their point. She is racist because she says her parents come from Africa. If I recall, saying that about someone born in the USA is racist - right? Or is it just Mexico?

That is not all that is puzzling. The DNC chair is insisting that we ignore the emails because they are the result of Russian hacking and it would not be patriotic to pay them any mind. The negative information in those emails was inserted by the Russian hackers, but the DNC does not need to disclose any (not even one) real emails to prove anything.

I think that it is my legal training that is causing me to be confused. Does anyone have access to Journolist and can you get me on the list so that I can try to get this stuff to make sense?

The "Because you would be in jail" comment still brings a smile to face.

The commie-pinko left is all aflutter about it. They are not sure whether he's serious or not. Most on the right have written it off as an off-hand remark. But owing to Obama's lawlessness, the Hillary camp has to be a bit queasy about it. If Trump cleans house at the justice dept (likely), Hillary is toast. Along with the Foundation.

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Not to mention:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

I'm glad Trump got in a comment about the WJC/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting, an egregious violation of both ethics and common sense. If there was any discussion about 'grandchildren', it probably started with something like:

"Loretta, if you care at all about the safety of your grandchildren...."

The fly is not reasoning well just now. A man buzzes at its ears. This is enough to render it incapable of good advice. If I would have it find truth, I should chase away this animal which holds its reason in check and disquiets that intelligence which governs kingdoms.

"We know how this shit goes down, and yet White People pretend they're all offended and shit: bitches get the vapors, you feel me? Notice they don't give a shit that Black People say these things, because these condescending fucks think we just don't know any better...

What they're telling me is that they only get upset about other White People saying shit, because it's all about the Whites: come on and call ME out, bitches. Tell ME, a proud Black Man, that I'm vulgar. Tell ME I ain't treating women right. That's right: you gonna keep your White Mouth quiet, aren't you? You all scared to go THERE...

You think you got Problems? Fuck You."

I want to hear that take from Andrea Mitchel or Gloria Borger or Joy Reid. Rachael Maddow would be the best.

How is that all the rappers can objectify women - and make money doing so - but Trump makes a private comment and he's condemned as a criminal?

Why are those saying its sexual assault ignoring the fact that "they let him do things" That immediately becomes, he's clearly not getting consent and is forcing himself on them. Who is THEM? He is talking about women he banged and got as an entire group. He is not talking about specific women and situations. In all those situations not a single woman let him do things because she wanted him to? Not a single time? How could anyone ever prove you didn't have consent when they dont even know who the hell you are talking about? If there's a specific case where a woman alleges something you could argue the merits of whether people gave consent or not. because you can actually judge, based on the two stories whether one person was more truthful.But Trumps statement implies they let him do things. This may be true. if its true, then its not sexual assault. If not true, then it might be. But how do we know that Trump isn't talking about those who let him do those things when he says "THEY" They could be "all the women who let me do things to them and consented" How are those saying its assault disproving his statement? Since again, he is referring to a group in the abstract, and not to specific people.

The funny thing about those daily schedules is that they recorded meetings with people who gave her foundation, which was really a slush fund that was used to pay her political operatives, like, for instance, Sid Blumenthal who was paid 10 K a month from these donations to give her terrible political advice, which she had the poor judgement to take!

“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag – because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law,” Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations, told the Post.

Experts predict the circumstances surrounding the destroyed records will be intensely scrutinized. The Associated Press has been trying to obtain access to Clinton’s schedule and public and private calendars through Freedom of Information Acts from January 2009 to February 2013, and the wire service sued the State Department for the schedules in 2015.

LO FUCKING L! By who? By State? They are stonewalling everybody? By the FBI? Totally in the tank because the Clintons sucked Obama into this! A special prosecutor? No possible way because, as I said, Obama is involved!

This is how our republic ends, a couple of corrupt power seekers and their henchmen, and an incurious press.

When I think of "debate", my mind goes to those wonderful PBS debates with Willam F Buckley on Firing Line all those wonderful years.This one though was cringe inducing, because it was so vitriolic and unpleasant.

But I give Trump credit for raising issues that the mainstream media won't touch with a 10 foot pole. They'll spend prime time 20 minutes on stupid lewd comments Trump made 11 years ago that hurt no one, but they ignore Bill Clinton meeting the attorney general on the tarmac a day before the Comey press conference, Juanita Broderick's credible rape accusations against Bill Clinton, the anemic economic recovery under Obama, 93 million Americans out of the workforce, and the devastating effects of Obamacare on small business.

So I'd give the nod to Trump. I hope he can pull it off. He's got my vote.

The press could force Hillary to withdraw in a week if they stopped covering for her. But don't worry! The self appointed "fact checkers" who rely on an unhealthy dose of their own opinion in every instance are on the case!

(cont) they are trying to get Trump on a technicality by suggesting that he didn't get express verbal consent every single time he kissed someone. But I'll be honest, I never got express verbal consent every time I kissed someone. Because that's how the wooing sometimes works. Sometimes one of the people has to make a move based on non verbal cues. If you watch any movie that shows a couple having sex, count the number of times when they requires express verbal consent when they do anything? Can you think of a single movie where the man says" May I kiss you? May I touch your breast? May I caress your cheek? May i put my hand on your hips? Mother may I? Simon says?" Thats not how sex works.

Even if we take Trumps words at face value it doesnt mean that when he goes in for the kiss that the woman hasn't provided plenty of cues that would warrant him going in for the kiss. Because he isn't actually defining the parameters of the situation. He is simply descriibing behavior absent any context. Women will often touch a man without getting express verbal consent as a sign that they are interested. That's not ASSAULT. that's simply a non verbal cue that women use to show men that they should be pursued.

SO how do we know that those women Trump kissed didn't first provide those non verbal cues? Or even told him outright how hot and sexy he was. He is speaking in generalities, but we can't judge his statement without context, because we can't know that he isn't right to assume its ok to kiss a woman in the situations he did.

If he said "I dont care if they say no, I just take their pussy" then you could say "this guy seems like someone who doesnt respect boundaries" But, if he says I just kiss them, but the situation is that the women he kisses are people who have expressed sexual interest then is it wrong that he would kiss them?

She [HRC] went on: “The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade . . . and then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him.’

"The bigger issue here is that she will be immune from impeachment and conviction if she wins. She will be Queen."

That's a bit hyperbolic. Why impeach her when they can use her unpopularity and corruption as a foil to increase their own power? They're going to slap her around like the proverbial red-headed stepchild. Telling Hillary to go fuck herself is going to become a Congressional drinking game.

Of course Ryan doesn't want Trump to win the presidency. After the Donks get wiped out in historic quantities at the 2018 mid-terms, Ryan will be the de facto President, with a very reasonable hope of becoming the actual President in 2020.

Yeah, yeah: I know what you gonna say. You gonna say that the White Guy is running for President, that's different. Let me clue you in on something, cause you don't seem to get things unless they smack you in the face: Rappers have more influence on more people than the President does...

People don't think about the President most days, but they be boomin' the beats non-stop, understand? No one cares about no fucking State of the Union address, but when Jay-Z drops another bomb everyone knows it...

Brothers can recite the entire words of a Kanye track, but couldn't tell you one thing that came out of the President's mouth. That's cause they know politics is bullshit, and Rap is Truth. And it ain't just the Brothers; your White Punk-Ass Kids can recite right along, you feel me? And that makes you scared now, don't it? C'mon: you can tell the Truth here, even if it's only to your own damn self...

After the Donks get wiped out in historic quantities at the 2018 mid-terms, Ryan will be the de facto President, with a very reasonable hope of becoming the actual President in 2020.

There is a ray of sunshine! Not that Ryan the sellout will get such power, but indeed, a deeply unpopular Hillary is likely to maybe give us the 60 seat Senate majority that is probably the natural level for Republicans.

Laslo says: "How is that all the rappers can objectify women - and make money doing so - but Trump makes a private comment and he's condemned as a criminal?

We all know the answer to this question. Everyone commenting on negatively on Trump's statements who did not compare them to rappers has demonstrated their gutlessness. Or is it their hypocrisy? Or both? Political bias? Sexism? Parochialism? OK, I just threw that one in. Altho.....

Prof. A.: Sound fiscal policy is a necessary condition for a healthy (or "great") nation. Due to an urgent need to sort my sock drawer I was unable to watch the Debate. It would be gracious of you to summarize that part of the Debate which addressed the issue of balanced Federal budget. Thank you for your service.

The only chance Hillary Clinton has to win is if Donald Trump stays in the race. If the Republicans run him off (as they ran off Nixon and as the Democrats did not run off Bill), someone normal will replace him. Hillary will lose in a landslide.

The press will continue to yap about Donald's unsuitability, but Hillary will stop. She needs Donald Trump, and she knows it.

Buckleys debates were held under very different conditions. There was much less at stake on domestic policy, there was in fact far more consensus on domestic policy (it was Carter, after all, that took the lead on deregulation), and near-unanimity on foreign policy. Also the postwar economic growth was near-continuous with only short interruptions.One could have friendly differences of opinion because the game was penny-ante.

Last night I scanned a lot of debate polls and saw that Trump won most of them by a wide margin. But this morning, most of the 'polls' insist that Clinton 'crushed' Trump. I think there are two worlds out here: The MSM world and the real one. Only time will tell which world prevails.

"But you see what I'm getting at. You see what society does? Little boys, it's, "Wow, womaaaan!" We are taught to apologize. I am sorry. I am so sorry, baby. I am so sorry. What is it that we need? Is it their pussies? Their love? Mommy wouldn't let me play soccer... and Daddy, he hit me, so that's who I am, that's why I do what I do? Fucking bullshit. I will not apologize for who I am. I will not apologize for what I need. I will not apologize for what I *want*! "

"You will not control me! No! You will not take my soul! No! You will not win this game! Because it's a game, guys. You want to think it's not, huh? You want to think it's not? Go back to the schoolyard and you have that crush on big-titted Mary Jane. Respect the cock. You are embedding this thought. I am the one who's in charge. I am the one who says yes! No! Now! Here! Because it's universal, man. It is evolutional. It is anthropological. It is biological. It is animal. We... are... men!"

Hillary could have reassured Gorbah Hamed that as President, Huma Abedin will actually be running the country and Huma, a Muslim, will make the US safe for all Muslims. Huma btw is rumored to be Hillary's Chief of Staff or even the next SOS.

Did you notice that after the debate Hillary left with Huma. Not Bill or Chelsea.

She says: "No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it’s very clear." Oh? Is it? I don't remember how Bill clarified.--Hey..she says it's so. Therefore, it's so.This is what she does with ongoing concerns..i.e. "We're done with that now"

Trump -- the super-duper tough bargainer -- agreed to these moderators and to these rules.

* He agreed that the moderators could give different questions to him and to Clinton.

* He agreed that the moderators could interrupt him during his two minutes.

* He agreed that the moderators could spend much of the time asking him about his personal conduct.

* He agreed that "undecided questioners" could be Black women, Moslem women, men whose main concern is tax rates of the top 1%, and other such obvious plants.

Trump -- the super-duper tough bargainer -- agreed that all the debates can be anti-Trump carnivals, moderated by Democrats out to get him.

-----

Anyway, though, it doesn't matter.

Trump cannot talk intelligently on major topics for even two minutes.

* He had two minutes to talk about Obamacare.

* He had two minutes to talk about the Supreme Court.

* He had two minutes to talk about energy policy.

* He had two minutes to talk about Syria.

He squandered each such opportunity. He demonstrated that he lacks the knowledge and eloquence to serve as President.

Instead of studying the issues during the past couple of years, he has spent all his time and energy watching TV news, tweeting, giving interviews, speaking to crowds. shmoozing talk-show hosts, and traveling.

He's a scatter-brain buffoon.

However, I will vote for him, because I do not want the next President to keep flooding our country with Third-World uneducated immigrants.

One of these days the worm is going to turn and all the Bill Clinton abused and rape victims will feel emboldened enough to come forward with their stories about Bill Clinton's criminal behavior and it will have a snowball effect. Maybe, I hope.

I see it no different than her constantly accusing Trump of doing illegal things. If she's serious, and he really is breaking all these trade and tax laws, she better investigate him after the election.

"The moderators allowed Hillary to continue to talk but the more she talk the more she hurt herself."

-- At least twice, the moderator's followed up to Trump saying, "Clinton forgot to say this, but we think she should have, so, what do you say about this thing that your opponent didn't bring up, but we feel you should be attacked on?"

"Blame the sorry moderators for selecting those lame questions to be asked. They obviously wanted stupid softballs for questions. Only the one by Mr. Bone near the end of the debate had any substance at all."

-- Was he the energy policy question? That was actually a good one without too many assumptions smuggled into it. It gave us actual details from the candidates.

I counted at least three questions that were variants on: "Mr. Trump, since you're a big meanie, do you think you could be a good president?"

We wasted an hour essentially arguing: "Is Trump too big of an ass to be president?"

Scott Adams is correct in this way - people arent persuaded by reason. A Bill Buckley pseudo-professorial debate isnt really a "hard" debate free of irrational persuasion techniques, it is merely an artistic style, debate as technique independent of substance, or where substance was a neutral material to mold into tools as required. Buckley and co. were playing at an elevated level, in terms of language and education, but it was a fundamentally empty business, not more substantial than what we saw last night. It was more pleasant and satisfying to those of us open to that aesthetic but thats all it is.

Real, hard reason is what you bring to diagnosing problems with your car, or sorting out logistics of preparing an industrial site. This is why technicians and engineers are the finest of humanity, they are the most "hard", the most human. You can always deal reasonably with an engineer.

You can bring "hard" reason into a public policy discussion, and I have spent much of my life pining for such a thing, but it isnt going to happen. Even intelligent people are rarely intelligent ENOUGH, or perhaps there are, for most of humanity, intractable personality roadblocks that prevent cool analysis.

Remember how Trump told us how he was going to bargain with China. He said he knows some businessmen who are the meanest people in the whole world, and he's going to appoint them to bargain MEAN AND TOUGH on every little detail in the trade contract.

So, what's the great result of his bargaining about the debate moderators and rules?

EMD, Correct. That was because of a pile of emotional subtext in it, besides its substantial implications. It was like a large breaker smashing on a rocky coast, a spectacle of spray.This election is a storm in a sea of feelings, washing over a few substantial rocks.

I've been following politics for more than 30 years, and I can't tell you have many "traditions", "unwritten rules", and "Gentlemen's Agreements" related to Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS the Democrats have broken.

They were fine with them, as long as it benefited them. But once they saw an advantage they broke the agreement.

Bork is the best example. But there used to be "rules" about Filibusters, not criticizing the POTUS while abroad, not talking about someone's private life, respecting "off the record" conversations, voting against a SCOTUS judges only if he unqualified or had a ethical problem, etc.

Now, the MSM doesn't even PRETEND to be objective or tell the truth. They've lied about and smeared Trump more than any Republican I can remember.

Blogger Henry said...My standard is this: Ms. Clinton should be in jail and I would vote for her anyway. I'd like to see her go all Eugene Debs.

I would be more likely to vote for het if she were in jail. One of my biggest reasons for not supporting her--her destruction of equality under the law--would have been removed. So long as she avoids responsibilty for her crimes, she is an existential threat to our republic.

More directly, Trump is a short term threat that we can recover from. Clinton is a long term threat that we are unlikely to recover from.

Also, given the way and order the questions were given, I do not believe that the moderators just saw the questions recently.

Also, given Clinton's answers with specific names and examples to each question, along with neatly tying the theme of later questions to earlier ones with examples, she is either masterfully prepared to have trusted that she'd be given the same question ("Why is Trump not a good role model?") three times to be able to string out her theme through the whole night, or she knew the questions ahead of time. It felt the same way as the first debate, she had a response, but the response was just too perfect.

The only person who seemed to genuinely not have the entire night mapped out was Trump. Maybe Clinton and the moderators really are that good at ad libbing and preparing that they took a bunch of questions they'd never seen before and, on the fly, turned it into a perfectly woven narrative between the three of them with no prior coordination. Or, as we know that CNN has done in the past, was this all done on purpose to damage the Republicans again?

If I were one of the townspeople, I'd lie about my question to the moderators, then ask an actual policy question. Or, if I were #2 or #3 asking about how mean Trump is, I'd say, "You've already answered my initial question, but I'd like to ask another. Blah blah blah."

"I've been following politics for more than 30 years, and I can't tell you have many "traditions", "unwritten rules", and "Gentlemen's Agreements" related to Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS the Democrats have broken."

-- The one that broke the camel's back for me was when Reid publicly asked McCain to come back to Washington to help with the financial crisis during the campaign, then stabbed him in the back as soon as he did. At that point, I took a dim view of the electioneering that the leaders on Team Blue engaged in on a regular basis.

Many people will vote for Trump merely because he probably will not nominate Scientific Progressives to the Supreme Court.

During the debate, he was given two minutes to talk about the Supreme Court. He spent about 15 seconds saying he would nominate someone like Anthony Scalia. Then he spent all the rest of his time blathering this:

[quote]

Now, Hillary mentioned something about contributions just so you understand. So I will have in my race more than $100 million put in — of my money, meaning I’m not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like she’s doing. What I ask is this.

So I’m putting in more than — by the time it’s finished, I’ll have more than $100 million invested. Pretty much self-funding money. We’re raising money for the Republican Party, and we’re doing tremendously on the small donations, $61 average or so.

I ask Hillary, why doesn’t — she made $250 million by being in office. She used the power of her office to make a lot of money. Why isn’t she funding, not for $100 million, but why don’t you put $10 million or $20 million or $25 million or $30 million into your own campaign?

It’s $30 million less for special interests that will tell you exactly what to do and it would really, I think, be a nice sign to the American public. Why aren’t you putting some money in? You have a lot of it. You’ve made a lot of it because of the fact that you’ve been in office. Made a lot of it while you were secretary of state, actually. So why aren’t you putting money into your own campaign? I’m just curious.

[unquote]

Obviously, Trump does not have much to say about the Supreme Court.

You can't blame this answer of his on the moderators. You have to blame it on his ignorance and superficiality.

Trump didn't explain it well, but he was saying that he isn't bought and paid for, and that her appointments will be based on "what have you done for me lately?"

It was just done in a style that unless I took some time and dissected it right now and tried to think like Trump, I wouldn't have understood. It also requires you to know about the pay-for-play allegations.

WFB had excellent debates. As debates go. It was however rarely substansive. Not truly so. On Panama WFB and Reagan didnt really get into the realities of military logistics or volumes of shipping or anything of that sort. Neither had the specialized background, tools, or data to come to an informed opinion, though both cited all sorts of facts of this and that. They gave the appearance of knowledge far more so than any modern equivalents, but in both cases it was much more the appearance thereof.

Ross Perot was far more substansive and "reasonable" with his flip charts than any politician before or since. He looked at data, correlated data series, found trends and drew conclusions. He had the brain for this. He was not however a good politician.

Bill Clinton while in office from his Arkansas days on has treated women who were attracted to him or (were even just in his vicinity due to their job) as if they were Japanese comfort slaves. And that's OK with Democrats and with Hillary Clinton. So it doesn't matter what they dig up on Donald Trump, the worst they will ever find to say about Trump is that he has behaved like Bill Clinton but on a lesser scale. And Democrats think Bill Clinton did a good job in office.

And Bill isn't really out of office. Hillary plans to work with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation selling political favors thus giving Bill new opportunities for reducing more American women to comfort slaves. This what Hillary proclaimed in the debate - in order to pass legislation you need a "private position", i.e. private space, in which to work out "unsavory" deals because if "everybody's watching" "then people get a little nervous to say the least". The plain meaning is that the Clinton Foundation is her private space where she and Bill give and take bribes, that is why they are now rich. 250, 000, 000 dollars and more we don't know about. Pallet loads of cash for all we know. And for Bill, the extra benefit of his "private position" is that he can assault women because they or their husbands or need favors or want favors or they are someone's secretary or trophy woman.

And the Wapo and Martha Raddatz and the mainslime media undoubtedly knows all this - in the past, in the present and what can be projected about the future. But they have their private position in which they get favors and in exchange keep quiet about women being assaulted and their public position where they appear with pursued lips and stern expressions to belabor Donald Trump for talking and possibly behaving like Bill Clinton. (Behaving like Bill is next week).

President Trump will have to watch his step, ex-President Bill will not. That's the actual situation.

It's hard for Democrats to face reality but they should vote for Trump unless they like seeing women degraded. It's a tough place but look at it, think about it. Another great American, Huck Finn, was once in a similar position. Say his immortal words:

Hogwash! He indicate that he would pick someone like Scalia [which tell us where he stands on Rowe v. Wade, about which Hillary made her stand all-too clear] and that he wants someone who upholds the Constitution, whereas Hillary indicated that she wanted judges who have 'life experience', blah blah. I think we know pretty well where each stands regarding SCOTUS appointees.

Trump had to make his points when and where he could because, heaven knows, the moderators wouldn't steer any questions in his favor.

the increase in people signed up for Medicaid. I.e., a straight government benefit. This could have been passed as is in 2009 with hardly a quibble and it would have cost far less and not been disruptive of the rest of the system.

Yes. The bill was written by 25 year old Democrat staff lawyers and insurance company lobbyists. Pelosi and Reid believed that Hillarycare failed because she excluded insurance companies (and anyone with ny knowledge of healthcare) and this time they were going to be "inside the tent pissing out."

Insurance companies hate health insurance. They want to be administrators running claims so the employer, or government, can pay the bills. Once you eliminate "pre-existing conditions" it is not insurance.

The beauty of Wiki Leaks, here by the way, shows that no matter WHO the Republicans nominated, this was the plan. They got lucky and got one of the people they wanted to run against, but no matter who the Republicans nominated, dirty, nasty and mean was the plan from the start. Read that strategy and tell me "basket of deplorables" wasn't planned months in advance.

Ross Perot was far more substansive and "reasonable" with his flip charts than any politician before or since. He looked at data, correlated data series, found trends and drew conclusions. He had the brain for this. He was not however a good politician.

Hillary is going to tax the shit out of everyone to pay for her "free stuff" - thing is, it won't work - it will all go into a hole, and mysteriously coincidentally she and her cronies will all be very wealthy.

True, if Trump was a true conservative, he could have gone into a discussion on "activist judges" legislating from the bench etc. How effective he would be at that is err..debatable.Each candidate tries to force into the discussions the ideas and soundbite statements they want to outlive the moment.

Agree with Mike Sylwester, that SCOTUS response was one of Trump's weakest last night. It's like he doesn't have it in him to elaborate on his pledge regarding these appointments, and that is going to hurt him with people who might ONLY consider voting for him on that basis.

Otherwise for e most part he did much better last night than in debate #1, stayed on offense and got in some real blows to Clinton. He kept hammering the "30 years" though, and I think a better approach would be to talk about the corrupt network she's participated in building during those 30 years. It's not just that she's been ineffective (I assume this is an attempt to get Dem leaders to give up on her) but moreso that she has used her public positions to enrich herself and has completely subverted the rule of law. Trump also needs to talk more about the corruption of our institutions, a process that will be complete and irreversible if the Clintons return to the White House.

The moderators have to walk a fine line. They want Hillary to win, but they're not supposed to show their bias. It's tricky. Too much obvious bias might be self defeating and tip the scales towards Trump. They let the mask slip a couple of times, but it wasn't too egregious, Anyway, Trump won the debate. That's not to say that Hillary will not win the election.....Whoever wins will be despised by half the electorate and disliked even by a good number of their own supporters. I still don't understand how this happened.

I also suspect that there was more than a bit of hanky-panky in selecting both questions and questioners.

This whole business, media coverage, the campaign process, the debates, such as they are, voter registration, court rulings on voter registration, and seemingly every little detail is clearly manipulated according to a plan, overseen by a headquarters.

See, when the moderators brought up something that might hurt Clinton, it was like twisting a safety valve to let out steam. It wasn't like jabbing an ice pick into her eye like they tried with Trump. It was: "Hey, this is a problem. Could you address it to put everyone's mind at ease?"

It's why they didn't have her quote about putting coal workers out of work on hand and why her apology on the email was met with no push back compared to Trump's apology about the audio tape.

Walter: Yes. Exactly like the emails were brought up in the first debate. As a quick answer for Hillary to put the matter to rest with a canned response with no response allowed. Trump muscled his way in to talk about them, but he had to fight the moderators or talk over them to make his point.

Granted, though engineers are the finest of humanity, they arent natural politicians. For instance, my absolute required tool for persuasion is a whiteboard. I cant argue without a whiteboard. This doesnt work on ordinary humans.

The debate was light on policy, but that isn't just the fault of the candidates, but the questions selected. Not surprising given the race-horse mentality of the MSM.After the debate, there was still not analysis of the sound-bite policies that were expressed, just more of the same race-horse commentary.The last debate, Trump identified and named the stock market bubble we're in thanks to the Fed. That has incredible implications to the economy, but has been ignored.

Last night, Hillary all but said she would engage in a shooting war with Russia, by carving out a no-fly zone. Putin as already said they are moving S300 missles to Syria, so any attempt to enforce the no-fly zone would be dangerous.

Trump said it was too late to take out Assad and we should concentrate on ISIS instead. Sometimes the dictator you know is better than the rebel you don't. Think Libya.

Trump's energy policy would do more to spur an economic recovery (which as been essentially non-existent while we've been running up the countries credit card). Hillary made it clear that coal is gone-- alluding to the need to help out the coal regions while we shut down coal operating plants.

There is some significant proposals that deserve analysis. We get nothing from the MSM. I understand that they aren't experts and can't be expected to know everything, but they do have access to people that do.

Just like a president doesn't need to be an expert on every area. The president is CEO of the largest business on earth. Which candidate has experience running a business? We found out the last 8 years what happens when we elect a junior senator to the presidency.

tim maguire wrote: More directly, Trump is a short term threat that we can recover from. Clinton is a long term threat that we are unlikely to recover from.

We're almost in agreement, but have a different tipping point. I see Clinton as a status quo candidate that will face an oppositional House and will depart in 4 years leaving us just about where we are now. I see Trump as a wildly unreliable operator who could double-down on just about any bad idea that grabs his fancy. Clinton is Obama's third term which will be as dreary and unremarkable as his second term. Trump is John McCain, but without integrity or principles.

mockturtle said...Last night I scanned a lot of debate polls and saw that Trump won most of them by a wide margin. But this morning, most of the 'polls' insist that Clinton 'crushed' Trump. I think there are two worlds out here: The MSM world and the real one. Only time will tell which world prevails.

No; there are online polls, which are wildly inaccurate and skewed by individual demographic groups (like an Alhouse poll, or a Drudge poll, or a Breitbart poll, or a MoveOn poll) and which are mostly ignored by larger mainstream media outlets.

Then there are professionally crafted polls done by survey, which take longer to produce and report and which are more scientifically linked to voter behavior and broader public opinion.

All of which leads the narrow minority Trump-supporting group to think of themselves as a grand silent majority, destined for an electoral victory. Against better evidence to the contrary.

If there are two worlds -- and upon reflection I think I may have to concede you are right! -- they are the group hopeful for a Trump victory, and the rest of the world that seems to be inevitably moving toward a massive Trump defeat.

"a quick answer for Hillary to put the matter to rest with a canned response with no response allowed."Dunno.. Her "canned response" was pretty damn weak..can't imagine it put it to rest with anyone concerned about it.

"I see Clinton as a status quo candidate that will face an oppositional House and will depart in 4 years leaving us just about where we are now."

-- This isn't to say I'm voting for Trump, but my main reason for not voting for Clinton is that every institution she touches becomes corrupted. Look at what happened to State, the FBI and her foundation -- each one of them has been lessened severely because of how her team operates. They feel they have the right to simply ignore the laws. Nixon was small potatoes compared to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

That's not enough to be a positive vote for Trump, but I feel like the damage that she'll do to the rule of law and systems that are supposed to be impartial is too great to trust her, even if she makes no legislative accomplishments.

THe absolute worst answer given by anyone was Hillary's response to her comment about having two personas - a public one and a private one. And how she tried to pass it off on Abe Lincoln. That was howlingly bad. It was so bad it was the one time I jumped up and said "WHATTTT????" upon hearing the answer. Prior to that I would talk back to the tv and say "bullshit" or "not true" or "not answering the question" (I said it a few times about Trump too). But that was the one time where I was honestly flabbergasted at the ridiculousness of the response

(1) Forego any criminal prosecution of Trump because it is a violation of democratic norms to prosecute a former presidential candidate; (2) Allow the Attorney General and his or her designees to decide whether to prosecute; or (3) Have the Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to look into the matter and decide whether to prosecute?

Gedankenexperiment #2:

Evidence emerges that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to hack DNC and HC campaign emails. Same questions as Gedankenexperiment #1.

Gedankenexperiment #3:

George McGovern wins the 1972 election. Information emerges about the obstruction of justice committed by Nixon’s lieutenants and possibly Nixon himself. Same questions as Gendankenexperiment #1, for (a) Nixon, and (b) Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Dean and others.

"Dunno.. Her "canned response" was pretty damn weak..can't imagine it put it to rest with anyone concerned about it."

-- And every journalist, thought leader and Democrat politician is going to be telling every person who is only marginally following the election that it did. Not only that, but any time someone tries to bring it up, they'll be met with push back that it is old news and been resolved.

it doesn't matter that the people who were already not voting for Hillary disliked her answer. It gave her supporters an effective tool to silence the criticism and ensure that undecided and weak Hillary supporters were not exposed to it more than needed.

An oppositional House doesnt matter because the House doesnt matter, as we have seen for most of the decade. Nearly all true, enforcable, effective laws are made by regulatory processes and judicial interpretation. The House is irrelevant.

This question is for the resident gay expert Titus. Do you think Anderson Cooper has ever grabbed a guy's cock without asking for permission? And did you find it amusing when the gay Cooper asked Trump if his grabbings were actually assaults on women.

"a public one and a private one. And how she tried to pass it off on Abe Lincoln."

-- That was when I was convinced that Clinton had the questions ahead of time. That is an answer that works fine for Hillary Clinton partisans. "Oh, just like how Obama really always for gay marriage, but couldn't come out and say it!" is the feeling she's trying to project. She probably tested it with whoever was on her debate squad and they all smiled and said: "Perfect."

The problem is, as usual with politicians, they didn't try and test it outside the bubble.

... He indicates that he would pick someone like Scalia [which tell us where he stands on Rowe v. Wade, about which Hillary made her stand all-too clear] and that he wants someone who upholds the Constitution, whereas Hillary indicated that she wanted judges who have 'life experience', blah blah. I think we know pretty well where each stands regarding SCOTUS appointees.

He was given two minutes to talk about the Supreme Court. He talked about the Supreme Court for about 15 seconds.

All the rest of his time he spent blathering about how he spent $100 million on his own campaign.

This was an occasion when:

* about 85 million people were watching

* a question about the Supreme Court could be expected

* this issue is decisive for many undecided voters

* he was allowed to speak for two minutes without interruption.

* non-politicians and non-lawyers can speak extemporaneously and intelligently about the Supreme Court for two minutes.

In this situation, Trump had practically nothing to say about the Supreme Court.

-----

It really does not matter that the debate moderators and rules are blatantly biased.

Trump cannot speak about most political issues in a well-informed, eloquent, Presidential manner. That's the essential problem.

He has spent the past two years watching TV news, giving interviews, speaking to big crowds, shmoozing talk-show hosts, and traveling.

He has not spent any productive time studying the issues or talking with experts. He has some policy positions on the Internet, and maybe he read each of those once. He is too intellectually shallow to be an effective President.

However, I will vote for Trump the Scatter-Brain Buffoon anyway.

Clinton will fill the Supreme Court with Scientific Progressives, with flood the USA with Third World immigrants, and will wreck the US economy with her Socialist foolishness.

Blogger AReasonableMan said... buwaya puti said... This could have been passed as is in 2009 with hardly a quibble

Delusional. It still isn't implemented in many states.

This could have been passed as a federal implementation/federal budget item rather than a state by state election/state budget item. The legislative authors thought that no state could pass up federal money for the first several years and all would adopt it.

'In this sequence Trump is not boasting about having sex: he’s telling a personal anecdote about an occasion when he didn’t manage to have sex (‘I failed I’ll admit it’). He then returns to what seems to be the original topic, how to assess the woman’s physical attractiveness. The first speaker’s turn suggests that this has diminished over time (‘she used to be great’), but whereas he thinks ‘she’s still very beautiful’, Trump’s reference to her ‘big phony tits’ implies that he no longer finds her as desirable.

What’s going on here is gossip. Like the young men’s gossip I discussed in my earlier post, this is judgmental talk about an absent other which serves to reinforce group norms (in this case, for male heterosexual behaviour and for female attractiveness). It’s also male bonding talk: by sharing intimate information about himself–and especially by admitting to a failed attempt at seduction–Trump positions the other men as trusted confidants.'

'Trump’s contribution to this extract looks more like the ‘sex boast’ of the news headlines. But we shouldn’t overlook the fact that this too is an enactment of male bonding. Trump, the alpha male of the group, takes centre stage, but the other men support him throughout with affiliative responses–saying ‘woah’ and ‘yes’, echoing his sentiments (‘Trump: you can do anything’/ ‘Bush: whatever you want’), and above all, greeting his most overtly offensive remarks with laughter. They laugh when he says he doesn’t wait for permission to kiss a woman; they laugh again when he mentions ‘grab[bing] [women] by the pussy’. (You can listen for yourself, but my assessment of this laughter is that it’s appreciative rather than embarrassed, awkward or forced.)

The transgressiveness of sexual banter–its tendency to report markedly offensive acts or desires in deliberately offensive (or in the media’s terms, ‘lewd’) language, is not just accidental, a case of men allowing the mask to slip when they think they’re alone. It’s deliberate, and it’s part of the bonding process. Like the sharing of secrets, the sharing of transgressive desires, acts and words is a token of intimacy and trust. It says, ‘I am showing that I trust you by saying things, and using words, that I wouldn’t want the whole world to hear’. It’s also an invitation to the hearer to reciprocate by offering some kind of affiliative response, whether a token of approval like appreciative laughter, or a matching transgressive comment. (‘I trust you, now show that you trust me’.)'

Every institution is already corrupt, no need for Clinton to do anything further. She is merely a figurehead for all of the all-encompassing system of corruption. In fact she is very likely a particularly obsolete component of the system, using embarassingly primitive methods like the Clinton foundation and her server. The PTB have far more developed tools in their current kit.

CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.

And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great — I thought a great display of presidential leadership.

But, you know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information, we don’t even know if it’s accurate information, and then they put it out.

We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me, they’re not doing it to get me elected. They’re doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.

I question you're reading the whole thing to its conclusion: "We need to acknowledge that the kind of banter Trump has been condemned for is more than just an individual vice: it is a social practice supporting a form of fraternity that stands in the way of women’s liberty and equality."

The Democrats could easily have passed a simple Medicaid expansion as an entitlement, as they were tacitly licensed to do, given that they had decisively won the election. They did after all pass a host of other spending measures in those years.

"Am I the only who's a little freaked out by all the anti-Russia rhetoric on the left? When did liberal Democrats get so bellicose?"

Damn good questions. The neocon saber rattling is on the Dems' side now, at least in Presidential politics. It's pretty amazing to me how much more of a Dove Trump is than Clinton. Of the two, she and her team seem far more likely to carry on more meddling and globalist adventuring. This makes me sick to my stomach.

Even if she is referencing Abe Lincoln, the point is she is saying you should have a public an d private persona when it comes to making deals. She shows an example of how masterfully this was done by Abe Lincoln. But she wasn't ONLY talking about Abe Lincoln. She was saying SHE does this. ANd then cited an example, using Abe Lincoln about, a politician who did this. That doesnt exhonrate fact that she says she does this herself.

I also want to bring up this public-private persona comment when it comes to sexual dalliances and locker room talk. What you say and do in public vs private are in fact different. What Trump may say to his buddies about his exploits is different than what he presnents in public. Here, having two personas is actually relevant and necessary. Beucase at the end of the day, whoever has sex is having sex. if you like breasts on a woman or dicks on a man you are objectifying women and men. If you have sex with women or men and its not in a loving marriage you are essentially acting like sluts and/or loose men or women. And there is a judgement attached to that, whether we like it or not. Even when its your parents, there is some cognitive dissonance. When for example, you find out your mother had an active sex life when she was young. Every has this idea that their mom is virginal and only had sex with dad, but mom might have been a real hoe in her day. The point is, all that stuff is part of your Private persona. its not supposed to come out and be leaked in the public. If dad was telling his buddies about the women he used to score before mom and how one in particular was really into giving him head or something, it will look really bad if it comes out. It's dad. He's objectifying women. he's saying he let a woman suck his cock. Did he view her as a sexual object. Did he get express verbal consent every step of the way? Dad is a misogynist!!!! No, dad just had sex. Like everybody else. You are just uncomfortable about hearing about your dad being a human being.

"I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least." Replace politics with SEX and you see exactly the problem with this latest attack. The media showed how the sausage was made with Trump and then insinuated it was necessarily bad beucase if you see sausage being made it gets people nervous. But thats because the media went out of its way to show it. and say the only possible explanation for Trumps actions was that he was commiting assault. The media pulled back the curtain and showed the sausage being made and then whipped the crowd into a frenzy becuase they dont like seeing it being made. But you know what people? You eat sausage too. And thats exactly how your sausage is made as well.

"One member of the audience asked a last question before the close of the debate. He asked if each candidate could say one thing they liked about the other candidate. It was a great question in light of a debate that was one of the nastiest public encounters between Presidential candidates, if not the nastiest in American history. Mrs. Clinton complimented his children thereby implying that Mr. Trump must have done something right to raise such well-spoken, intelligent, and mature humans. Compared to Trump’s answer, she was evasive. He flatly stated that he admired a quality of her character, namely that she does not quit. He said, “She’s a fighter.” In so doing, her answer appeared mealy-mouthed by contrast. The Donald had risen above the fray, above the name calling, above the intensity of their encounter, above the negatives. He said something positive about her and seemed to mean it.

Donald Trump came into the debate as the scorned violator of women who had dirtied himself by improbable and offensive use of politically incorrect language. By the end of the debate, the bad press preceding the debate had been eclipsed. He had pounded his smarmy, pre-packaged, self-righteous opponent and his critics into the ground. He left the stage having turned the tide."

"...every institution she touches becomes corrupted. Look at what happened to State, the FBI and her foundation -- each one of them has been lessened severely because of how her team operates. They feel they have the right to simply ignore the laws. Nixon was small potatoes compared to a Hillary Clinton presidency."

I also suspect that Russia leaning on Poland and the Baltics is welcome to the EU as a way to discipline these wayward children and bring them into line. Which should of course fit into the aristo EU-Democrat alliance vs the European populists.

Looking inside the koolaid factory for proof Trump did well in this debate isn't going to help Trump.

Trump needed to become a great debater. He is not! He never will be good at this and it is hurting him. Add to it his already high negatives and the garbage the left will throw at him this week right up to the election. His own garbage! Then add the SNL pop-culture stuff.

I knew from the get-go that Trump would hand this election to her. Conspiracy or not.

Trump will not be a terrible president. But we will never get to find out because the fix is in. Rigged.

(cont) you can justify having a public and private persona about sex. Its less easy to jsutify having a public and private persona about public policy. Especially if your private persona is different than the public one.Like for example her stance on TPP. Trump should have brought that up at the debate when the question came up with something like "I guess that expains your position on TPP. you tell us its the gold standard then say you are opposed to it. Your position on TPP is simply your public persona. But behind the scenes you are for it. THanks for showing how you lie deliberately, Hillary. Very good to know"

"Sound like the establishment (Hillary and Pence) are will to engage and go to war with Russia for a no-fly zone."Didnt we (as a country) already have this debate when Obama DIDNT set up no fly zones in syria? The argument why he shouldn't was that we'd start an air war with Russia. They might shoot our planes down! do we want to start a war with Russia?! This was when Republicans were proposing to set up no fly zones.

So, Hillary should have been asked if she supports Obama's position. or does she think he made a MISTAKE. Is she actually taking the Republican position and is Trump actually taking the anti war position?

And I don't like my bygone era spiked with questions from the internet — those social media layabouts who get to intrude their questions in front of the townsfolk who endured the ordeal of sitting on little chairs behaving themselves for 90 minutes. Raddatz and Cooper wanted to ask tough questions and manage a proper grilling. Set them free to do just that with a normal moderated debate.

The townhall format is a stupid gimmick, and its execution on this occasion was extra stupid.

Does anybody think that the Black woman and the Moslem woman were undecided? The whole act about Gallup choosing undecided voters was a farce.

How come none of these "citizen questioners" ever are, for example, a Kentucky coal miner who is unemployed and mad about jobs being taken by illegal immigrants? Instead, we get only Moslem women who are concerned about Islamophobia?

Cooper and Raditz want to talk about rich people not paying enough taxes, and so they choose an "undecided" citizen whose big issue is that the rich should be taxed more. If that's his big issue, then he isn't undecided.

The debates are a circus that have the blatant purpose of embarrassing Trump.

""And we’ve had many successful Muslims. We just lost a particular well-known one with Muhammad Ali." Yeah that was pretty groan inducing. I feel your pain. SO now I'm going to show I'm with you by referencing a single famous muslim to show how much i can pander/feel your pain.

"CLINTON: At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here. Notice: Trump bypassed the idea of showing empathy over something that was compared to the Holocaust. He went straight to blaming Hillary. Here's PolitiFact fact-checking: "Clinton says she was gone for the 'red line' in Syria incident... We rate her claim Mostly False."

The people in the Norman Rockwell picture all all white, so that's one strike against them right there. Also none of them are fat. How representative of America can the gathering be if there are no overweight persons in the crowd. And they all look like they're trying to pass themselves off as straight.......America has grown more sexually and racially diverse since Rockwell's day and far, far fatter.